fuel composition & administration federal aviation …2018/12/04 · sajf 3. present acrp 02-80...

Federal AviationAdministrationFuel Composition &

Aircraft Emissions

Presented to: CAAFI Biennial General MeetingBy: Dr. Jim Hileman

Chief Scientific & Technical Advisor for Environment and EnergyOffice of Environment and EnergyFederal Aviation Administration

Date: December 4, 2018

Federal AviationAdministration

FAA Efforts to Address Aircraft Emissions• Understanding Impacts

– Particulate Matter (PM) measurements and modeling– Improving air quality and climate modeling capabilities– Evaluating current aircraft, commercial supersonic aircraft,

unmanned aerial systems, and commercial space vehicles

• Mitigation– Engine standard (CAEP PM standard)– Policy measures (CORSIA)– Vehicle operations– Modifications to fuel composition – Alternative fuel sources– Airframe and engine technology– Aircraft architecture

2


• Epidemiological studies link long-term exposure to fine Par t iculate Matter (PM 2.5) to increased r isk of premature mor tality [Dockery et al. (1993);

Pope et al. (2002); W HO (2008); Pope et al. (2009); USA EPA (2011)]

• Par t iculate Matter consists of par t icles and liquid droplets• Par t iculate Matter = PM 10 = diameter ≤ 10 μm (enters lungs)• Fine Par t iculate Matter = PM 2.5 = diameter ≤ 2 .5 μm (enters blood)• Ultrafine Par t iculate Matter = PM 0.1 = diameter ≤ 0 .1 μm (could enter

systems)

• PM from aircraft engines:• Soot (a.k.a., non-volatile PM, black carbon)• Volatile organic compounds from engine

sulfate and nitrates & atmospher ic ammonia• Aircraft engine PM is sufficiently small to

qualify as ultrafine par t iculate matter

Fine particulate matter

http:/ / www3.epa.gov/ airquality/ particlepollut ion/ basic.html

Particulate Matter

3


Using Fuel Composition to Reduce Emissions

Fuel composition and engine design determine emissions

Conducting cost-benefit analyses to understand if the benefits of modifying fuel composition outweigh the economic costs

(research effort at MIT under PARTNER/ASCENT)

Tank-to-Wake Actual Combustion EmissionsCO2 + H2O + NOX + SOX + soot + CO + HC + N2 + O2

Fuel: CnHm + S

N2 + O2

Air:

4

Air

N2 + O2

Incr

easi

ng P

olic

y Re

leva

nce

Fuel: CnHm + S*

Engine Fuel Combustion

Direct Emissions

Atmospheric Processes:

Interactions and

Feedbacks§

Damages

Complete combustion products:N2 + O2 + CO2 + H2O + SO2

*

Actual combustion products:N2 + O2 + CO2 + NOx + SOx

* + HC + CO + H2O + BC*

H2O

Incr

easi

ng S

cien

tific

Unc

erta

inty

§Account for radiative, chemical, microphysical and dynamical couplings along with dependence on changing climatic conditions and background atmosphere

Social welfare and costs

NOX SOXHC BC

ΔSO4 PM ΔBC PM

ΔO3

ΔNO3 PM

Interaction through

background NH3

Chemical Reactions

Changes in Air Quality

Microphysics

Aerosol-Cloud Interactions

Air

N2 + O2

Incr

easi

ng P

olic

y Re

leva

nce

Fuel: CnHm + S*

CO2

Engine Fuel Combustion

Direct Emissions

Atmospheric Processes:

Interactions and

Feedbacks§

Changes in RadiativeForcing

components

Damages

Impacts

Climate Change

Complete combustion products:N2 + O2 + CO2 + H2O + SO2

*

Actual combustion products:N2 + O2 + CO2 + NOx + SOx

* + HC + CO + H2O + BC*

Oceanic & Land Uptake

ΔCO2

H2O

ΔH2O

Incr

easi

ng S

cien

tific

Unc

erta

inty

§Account for radiative, chemical, microphysical and dynamical couplings along with dependence on changing climatic conditions and background atmosphere

Changes in temperature, sea level, ice/snow cover and precipitation, etc.

Agriculture and forestry, ecosystems, energy production and consumption, human health, social effects, etc.

Social welfare and costs

ΔClouds

Contrails

NOX SOXHC BC

ΔSO4 PM ΔBC PM

ΔO3

ΔCH4

ΔH2O

ΔNO3 PM

Interaction through

background NH3

Chemical Reactions

Changes in Air Quality

Microphysics

Aerosol-Cloud Interactions Aerosol-Cloud Interactions

Federal AviationAdministration 7

ASCENT COE Projects 20 and 21 and PARTNER Project 3 (2006 to present)

APMT-Impacts Cost Benefit Analysis ToolsChanges in aviation technology could impact noise, global climate and air quality. Developed an aviation environmental tool suite to assess the impacts of noise and emissions to inform decision-makers.

Analytical tool suite being used to quantify costs and benefits of changing fuel composition

ASCENT Project 20 & Project 21 Info at: https://ascent.aero/project/


Emissions Modeling

Atmospheric Composition

Δ CO2

PARTNER COE Project 27 (2007-2011)

Sulfur Removal Cost-Benefit Analysis

Reduced Health Costs - Benefit

Air Quality Climate Change Production

Increased Warming - Cost

Increased Production

Cost

+

Chemistry Transport Models

PM2.5

Epidemiological CRFs

Applied toPopulation Densities

Increased health impacts

Monetization of Costs & Benefits

Reduced SOxAerosol Cooling Increased

CO2Emissions

Added HDS Units

<$2.05 -2.34B $0.82 -2.35B $2.52B

PARTNER Sulfur Cost Benefit Analysis Final Reporthttp://partner.mit.edu/projects/environmental-cost-benefit-analysis-ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuels


ASCENT COE Project 37 (2016 to present)

Naphthalene Removal Cost-Benefit AnalysisNaphthalene in jet fuel identified as disproportionate contributor to soot emissions• Air Quality & Health Impact• Climate Impact via Contrail FormationTwo means of fuel treatment considered• Hydro-treatment (aromatics and sulfur)• Extractive Distillation (aromatics alone) Production costs (preliminary values)• Societal economic cost: $0.06 to $0.09 per gal• Market cost to refiner: $0.11 to $0.18 per gal

Key [1]O :Jet A w/ Naphthalene-Depleted Aromatic Additive

+ :Jet A w/ Aromatic Additive

Monetized environmental impacts (preliminary values)• Assumed 15% to 40% reduction in nvPM from change in fuel composition• Air quality benefit (decreased impact): $0.00 to $0.04 per gal• Climate cost (increased impact): $0.00 to $0.15 per gal (due to increased refining

emissions, loss of sulfate aerosols, and assumption of no change in contrails)

ASCENT Project 39 Naphthalene Cost Benefit Analysis Descriptionhttps://ascent.aero/project/naphthalene-removal-assessment/


• Changes in fuel composition could reduce emissions– Get reduced nvPM with reduced fuel aromatics – expect larger impact with

reductions in naphthalenes and other more complicated aromatic compounds– Get reduced sulfates with reduced fuel sulfur content

• Environmental impacts from reduced nvPM and sulfates– Air quality benefit - less particulate matter pollution from aircraft operations– Climate impact is mixed – less radiative forcing from black carbon but increased

radiative forcing from removal of sulfates and contrail impact is uncertain• Sulfur and Naphthalene Removal Cost-Benefit Analyses (CBA)

– Expect a net cost from reducing sulfur concentration in jet fuel to ULS levels– Might be a net cost with naphthalene removal using HDS and extractive distillation,

but need to account for contrail impacts before being certain• Study Implications

– CBA studies are exploratory in nature - interested in knowing the relative merits of various means of reducing emissions from aircraft engines

– Alternative jet fuels would provide air quality benefits relative to conventional fuel– Need to know more about contrail formation to get full story on climate impacts

associated with changes in jet fuel composition

Summary


Dr. Jim HilemanChief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment and EnergyFederal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and EnergyEmail: [email protected]

ACRP 02-80 Quantifying Emissions Reductions at Airports from the Use of Alternative Jet Fuels

CAAFI Biennial General Meeting 2018

Dr. Uven Chong, Booz | Allen | Hamilton

December 6, 2018

1

Project Team

2

Philip SoucacosDr. Uven ChongDr. Akshay BelleClare MurphyAmandine Coudert

Sandy Webb Dr. Philip WhitefieldDr. Don Hagen

Steve Csonka

ACRP Senior Program Officer: Joe Navarrete

3

Contents

• Project Background

• State of the Industry Report

• Quantification Methods

• Airport Dissemination

Presentation Outline

The objective of this research is to develop a method to help airport industry practitioners estimate potential emissions impacts by the use of ASTM-certified alternative jet fuels.

Key Research Products• State of the Industry Report: A stand-alone report that includes a literature review and gap

analysis of existing knowledge of emissions from SAJF.

• Emissions Reductions Methodology: A process that quantifies the emissions impacts that will allow airports to capture the air quality benefits from the use of SAJF.

• Alternative Jet Fuel Emission Reduction Fact Sheet: Quick slick-sheet that showcases the benefits of using alternative jet fuels at airports.

• Case Studies and Alternative Jet Fuel Assessment Tool: A tool under an Inputs-Calculations-Outputs model with scenario analysis and optimization routines.

4

Project ObjectivesProject Background State of the Industry Report Quantification Methods Airport Dissemination

Project BackgroundProject Background State of the Industry Report Quantification Methods Airport Dissemination

5

Review of Existing Studies

6

Project Background State of the Industry Report Quantification Methods Airport Dissemination

• Captured the current status of knowledge regarding emissions from the use of sustainable alternative jet fuels (SAJF).

• Collected, reviewed, and compiled data from reports of SAJF emissions tests sponsored by DOD, NASA, FAA, OEMs, fuel producers, university labs, and technical government briefings/reports.

Purpose

Results of Literature Review

7

Key Findings:SAJF when blended with conventional jet fuel has:• Significant reductions on SOx and PM emissions• Modest reductions on CO and UHC emissions• Minimal reductions or no effect on NOx emissionsREVIEWED BY THE ACRP PANEL PRIOR TO PUBLICATION


State of the Industry Report

8


PUBLISHED

The State of the Industry Report is published on the ACRP 02-80 website. It can be downloaded from this link:

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4238

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4238

Pollutant Specific Impacts Spreadsheet

Generate a pollutant specific spreadsheet based on the metrics identified and quantify the observed impacts, typically represented by percent changes in the emission indices

Approach to Quantify Emissions

9

Critical Metrics

Identify critical metrics that define the positive or negative impact of burning SAJFs (e.g. engine type, operating condition, fuel composition, blend %, weather)

1

Pollutant Specific Impacts Data Assessment

Assess the pollutant specific data to determine the extent to which a functional analysis per metric can be performed

2

3Development of functional impact relationships

Develop functional impact relationships for those species identified, i.e. having sufficient data to support the functional analysis.

4

Functional Analysis

Fit suitable functions to the measured data using general linear least squares methodology

Interface Pollutant Impact Analysis to AEDT

Report the pollutant, fuel, and engine specific impact relationships to use with the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)

5 6


Fact Sheet

10


• Present basic knowledge of the air quality issues related to SAJF.

• Identify potential benefits of using SAJF.

• Reference sources of information and tools to provide the audience with concrete and actionable next steps.

FOCUS1. Create material for non-

experts on a complex topic.2. Provide background on

SAJF3. Present ACRP 02-80 results

Requirements

Airport employees who are not necessarily environmental or air quality specialists or scientists.

Audience

Alternative Jet Fuel Assessment Tool

11

Content:

• Results of the emissions quantification methodology.• Functionality for airports to evaluate the use of SAJF at their airport.

Status:

• A draft design has been built and discussed with Subject Matter Experts.• The tool is currently being reviewed internally and will be submitted for Panel review

within the month.


Questions

12

CONTACT:

Uven Chong, [email protected]

Philip Soucacos, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ECLIF - Emission and Climate Impact ofAlternative FuelsND-MAX – NASA/DLR Multi-Disciplinary Experiment

CAAFI Biennial General Meeting4-6 December 2018, Washington DC

Presented by Patrick Le Clercq, DLRBruce Anderson, NASA

Aircraft Emissions Impact

Contrails and Climate Impact

contrails

contrail cirrus

contrail cirrus over northern Atlantic

Radiative Forcing Components from Aviation in 2005

Total anthropogenic radiative forcing (RF) was 1.6 W/m2

Aviation with 0.076 W/m2

represented ~5%

Recent models suggest that aviation induced cirrus cloudiness (0.031 W/m2) is the largest RF contribution from aviation

Alternative Fuel Impact on Emissions & Climate

ECLIF Objective and Overview

Investigate all the steps from fuel composition to in-situ measurements and climate models to understand

• How does fuel composition, fuel physical and chemical properties, fuel oxidation, and combustion system performance and emissions affect contrails and climate?

• Can alternative aviation fuels help mitigate the aviation induced radiative forcing and its forecasted increase?

Impact of aromatics content on soot formation

Aromatics mass% (GCxGC)

20%

100%Jet A-1

(NatRef)100% Merox

86% Ref1+

14% SPK

59% Ref1+

41% SPK

11%

Fuel Blends

100% Jet A-1

(NatRef)82% Merox18% DHC

55% Ref2+ 45% SPK

15%

Impact of aromatics structure on soot formation

FSJFRef1 SSJF3 SSJF1 Ref2 SSJF2

Impact of aromatics content and aromatic molecular structure on soot emissions (ground and in-flight), ice crystals formation, and contrail propertiesFuel Strategy

ECLIF – I Measurement Campaign Scientific Objective & Fuel Strategy

18%

Sulphur0.10 %mass1170 ppm


Sulphur0.05 %mass

572 ppm


Sulphur0.06 %mass

697 ppm

H content mass%(ASTM D7171)

Sulfur content(GCxGC)

9%

H 13.67% H 13.73%

H 14.01%

H 14.36% H 14.53%

H 14.17%

Ref1

Physical Properties

ECLIF Fuels – Modeling Physical & Chemical Properties

Jet Fuel Analytics (SASOL)

Complex mixture with hundreds of hydrocarbons

GCxGC

Jet Fuel Quantitative Composition n-alkanes iso-alkanes Monocyclo

alkanes

bicycloalkanes

mono-aromatics

naphthenoaromatics

naphthalenes

CH3

CH3

CH3

CH3

CH3

CH3

CH3

22.2 23.423.2

10.7 13.54.5

2.5

Ignition Delay Time

(C. Naumann, DLR, 2015)

Chemical Properties

Flow reactorSpecies profile

benzene

toluene

benzene

Ref2: 20.2 m% aromatics & 13.86 m% H Ref1: 20.5 m% aromatics & 13.85 m% H Impact of aromatics structure: Ref2 has 0.8m% more naphthalenes (di-aromatics)

SSJF2: 11 m% aromatics & 14.65m% HFSJF: 9 m% aromatics & 14.25m% H C6H6 concentration scales with H content

ECLIF – Combustion Properties

Soot precursors profiles in flow reactor

(P. Oßwald, DLR, 2016)

Soot emissions in high pressure single sector rig

Hi-POTHigh Pressure single sector rig

Ref1

FSJF

SSJF2

SPK

Soot luminosityp=6 bar, Tair=323 K, Φ=0.99

Jet A-1

FSJF

SPK

Benzene concentrationp=6 bar, Tair=700 K, Φ=0.99

0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Aver

age

soot

lum

inos

ity (c

ts)

Burner equivalence ratio

p= 6 bar, T= 50°C Jet A-1 #1 FSJF SSJF #2 n-Nonane GtL Oryx

Qualitatively Experiment:The lower the aromatics content the lower the average soot luminosity.

Simulation: The lower the aromatics content the lower the soot precursor concentration.

SPK

ECLIF – Combustion Rig Test & CFD

(T. Mosbach, DLR, 2016) (P. Le Clercq, DLR, 2010)

Fuel Design

Measurement

Diagnostics Lab-scaleExp.

Data Base

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.210

100

1000

10000

1000 K / T

Φ = 1 p5s = 16 bar dilution 1:2 Jet A-1 / air Bintulu / air100%SPK

carbon number

mas

sfra

ctio

n

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

n-paraffinsiso-paraffinscyclo-paraffinsmono-aromaticsdi-aromaticsolefins

Jet A-1

Composition

Ignition Delay Time

Generic Spray Burner

benzene

Plug Flow Reactor

Species Profile

HP Rig

Aromatics vol% (ASTM D6379)

19%

Fuel Blends

15%

Ref3 SAJF1 Ref4 SAJF3

Economically and industrially more feasible SAJF based on 30% HEFA (SAJF2) to achieve same 50% soot emissions reduction as a 50-50 blend (SAJF1).

Fuel Strategy

ND-MAX/ECLIF – II Measurement Campaign Scientific Objective & Fuel Strategy

Sulphur 105 ppm

Sulphur 59 ppm

H content mass%(ASTM D7171)

Sulfur content(ISO 20884)

9%

H 13.65%

H 14.40%

H 14.04%

Impact of aromatics structure on soot emissionsSAJF1 slightly less aromatics w/r SAJF2, very close H-content, 14.40%m/m and 14.51%m/m respectively. SAJF1 has 0.59vol% naphthalenes, SAJF2 has an order of magnitude less naphthalenes: 0.042vol%.

100%fossil

Jet A-151% Ref3

+49% HEFA-SPK

100%fossil

Jet A-1

H 14.06%Sulphur 6 ppm

Sulphur 4 ppm H 14.51%

70% Ref4+

30% HEFA-SPK

SAJF2

Ground Tests only

Sulphur 57 ppm

53.4% Ref3+

30.3% Ref4+

16.3% HEFA-SPK

ECLIF – I Measurement CampaignManching 21.09.2015 – 09.10.2015

Two Airfields & Two aircrafts• WTD61 Airfield in ManchingBase for Airbus A320-232 D-ATRA (Advanced Technology Research Aircraft) equipped with two IAE V2527-A5 engines.Fuel storage, tanking procedure, and ground measurements.• DLR Airfield in OberpfaffenhofenDLR Falcon 20E CMET as chaser + scientific team

Fuel Logistics• 118 MT of fuel from Sasolburg, ZA to Manching, DE• Customs in Hamburg, short-term storage in Munich and,

delivery + TÜV certified storage in Manching• 8 Iso-containers stored on the WTD61 apron#2 • Sampling, de-fueling and, fueling procedures after each

flight • Certificates of Analysis from Sasol for each blend, then

cross-checked with WIWeB analysis (after flight samples)

One Airfield and two Aircrafts• Ramstein Air Base, Germany

DLR A320 ATRA parked on apron #5NASA DC-8 parked either in Hangar 5 or apron.

• Probe mounted on blast fence + 2 containers for instruments: DLR, NASA, NRC Canada, Missouri S&T, Aerodyne, Uni. Oslo to perform ground tests

Fuel Logistics• 163 Tons (5 sorts), HEFA blend stock from

California (Altair) and Jet A-1 from Germany (Gelsenkirchen & Schwedt) were used for the blending.

• 7 Iso-containers + 3 US Air Force Tank Trucks for fuel storage in Ramstein

• Sampling, de-fueling and, fueling • Certificates of Analysis from Air BP for

each fuel.

ECLIF – II Measurement CampaignRamstein 15.01.2018 – 06.02.2018

Alternative-fuel effects on aircraft emissions and contrails: Results from joint NASA-DLR missions

Bruce Anderson and Patrick Le Clercq

Advanced Air Transport Technologies

NASA-DLR Joint Atmospheric Measurement Campaigns

NASA ACCESS-II, Palmdale CA, Spring 2014• NASA DC-8 burned Jet A and 50/50 Jet A Biofuel Blend• Emissions sampled by NASA HU25, DLR Falcon 20 and NRC CT-133• Ground emissions sampled by NASA

DLR ECLIF-1, Manching Germany, Fall 2015• DLR A320 burned 2 Jet A reference fuels and 4 blended alt fuels• Emissions/Contrails sampled by DLR Falcon 20• Ground emissions sampled by NASA and DLR

NDMAX/ECLIF, Ramstein Germany, Winter 2018• DLR/NASA Collaboration with Support from FAA and NRC-Canada• DLR A320 burned Jet A and 3 blended alternative fuels• Emissions/Contrails sampled by NASA DC-8• Ground emissions sampled by DLR, FAA, NASA and NRC-Canada

ACCESS-I, ACCESS-II

DLR Falcon 20

NASA DC-8NDMAX/ECLIF

ACCESS-II, ECLIF-1

NASA Falcon HU-25C

Sampling Platforms

Falcon Aircraft could sample <100 m in trail, DC-8 limited to >5 km

Source AircraftDLR A320 ATRA

NASA DC-8-72 CFM56-2C1 engines22,000 lbs thrust

V2527-A5 engines26,600 lbs thrust

AAFEX-1, AAFEX-2, ACCESS-I, ACCESS-II

ECLIF-1, NDMAX/ECLIF

ND-MAX/ECLIF DC-8 Instrument Probes and Inlets

Gas/Aerosol Inlets

CVI Inlet

Counter-Flow Virtual Impactor InletTrace-Gas

Inlets H2O(v) Inlet

FFSSP Cloud Probe

Aerosol Inlets

CAS and 2D-SCAPS and CPD

Measured aerosols, trace gases and cloud particles during each mission

Falcon Aircraft were similarly equipped during ACCESS-II and ECLIF-1

Ground and Flight Measurements Similar

ACCESS-II, 2014• NASA: Particle number, size, volatility and mass; CO2, NOx

ECLIF-1, 2015• NASA: Particle number, size, volatility and mass; CO2, NOx • DLR: Particle number, size; CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, THC• Oslo: Hydrocarbons

NDMAX/ECLIF, 2018• NASA: Particle number, size, volatility and mass; CO2, NOx • DLR: Particle number, size; CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, THC• Oslo: Hydrocarbons• Missouri (FAA): Particle number, size, mass (ICAO Method)• Aerodyne: Aerosol Composition• NRC-Canada: Particle number, size, mass

Joint Flights Conducted in Restricted Air Space

Bread-crumb Display

• Pilots worked with Military ATC to coordinate use of airspace

• Typically flew race tracks at varying speeds and altitudes

• Viewed real-time data from particle instruments to detect crossings

• DC-8 received ADSB output from source aircraft to determine location

• Real time displays of wind-advected flight tracks aided in plume detection

Combined Mission AccomplishmentsACCESS-II, 2014• 8 flights, 25 hours• Near-field emissions, very few contrail observations• 1 ground test, 3-hour DC-8 runtime

ECLIF-1, 2015• 9 flights, 35 hours• Near-field emissions, good contrail observations• 10 ground tests, 8-hour A320 runtime

NDMAX/ECLIF, 2018• 7 flights, ~33 hours• 1 Emission survey flight, 6 hrs• Very good contrail observations• 9 ground tests, 10-hour A320 runtime

ACCESS-II Observations Show that 50% Alt Fuel Blends Reduce nvPM emissions by 30 to 70% at Cruise

Moore et al., NATURE, 2017

BlendJet-A

BlendJet-A

ECLIF-1 Reveals nvPM Dependence on Fuel H Content

Number

Mass-Size

Number, mass and size decrease with increasing %Hydrogen Content

Number-Size

Mass

See Schripp et al., ES&T, 2018

ECLIF-1: Contrail Ice Concentrations also Proportional to Aromatics

0

2

4

6

SPKRef1/SPK3

EI ic

e [ *

1015

kg-

fuel

-1]

Ref20

5

10

15

SPK1Ref1/SPK3

EI s

oot [

*10

15 k

g-fu

el-1

]

Ref2Jet A-1 Synth. SPK Jet A-1 Synth. SPK

Ground measurementsSoot (aromatics)

Flight measurementsContrail ice

DLR-NASA flight experiment with Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene(SPK) with low aromatic content (11%)

Up to 50% reduction in particle/soot number/mass emissions for reduced aromatic content

Similar reduction in contrail ice particle number

Reduced climate impact by alternative fuels

19% 17% 11%

Schripp et al., 2018 Voigt, Kleine et al., 2018

ND-MAX Further Demonstrates Alt Fuel nvPM Reductions at Cruise, Provides Data for Model Development

FL320FL380

FL260

0.76

0.80

0.76

0.80

0.72 Rich Moore et al., NASA

Preliminary

Data courtesy of Christiane Voigt et al., DLR

ND-MAX Apparent Contrail EIs Correlate with nvPM EIs

FL260

FL380

Results suggest that 100% of nvPM activate to form ice!

Summary of Results So Far Aircraft performance not affected by burning 50% Alt fuel

blends—higher blend ratios would lower soot emissions

No discernable difference in NOx and CO emissions between fuels

50% blends reduce soot number and mass emissions by ~30 to 80% on ground and at cruise

Contrail ice concentrations proportional to soot emissions, which are proportional to fuel aromatics

Use of Sustainable Jet Fuels will Reduce Climate Impacts through both Reductions in CO2 Emissions and Contrail Cloudiness

Look for ECLIF and NDMAX Papers coming out in the next year

Questions?

Thank You

ECLIF-I

ND-MAX/ECLIF-2ACCESS-II

GARDN Project CAAFCER, Civil Aviation Alternate Fuel Contrails

& Emissions Research

Presented by : Fred Ghatala, Waterfall GroupSession: SAJF Benefits: Air Quality and Other Atmospheric Research

CAAFCER project team• The CAAFCER project was a 2016 award from The Green Aviation

Research and Development Network (GARDN), a non-profit organization funded by the Business-Led Network of Centres of Excellence (BL-NCE) of the Government of Canada and the Canadian aerospace industry. The research was conducted by a consortium, led by The Waterfall Group. Additional consortium members were the National Research Council Canada (NRC), Air Canada, SkyNRG, the University of Alberta and Boeing. DND QETE analysed fuel samples.

• All consortium members contributed In-kind support.

http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/Programs-Programmes/BLNCE-RCEE/Index_eng.asp

YUL – Civil Aviation Alternate Fuel Contrail and Emission Research (CAAFCER) - Blending ActivityProject Supply Chain Overview

– Research project led by the NRC to test the possible environmental benefits of biofuel use on contrails

– Neat Biofuel ASTM D7566 shipped from World Energy Refinery in Paramount CA

– Blending with fossil fuel at the highest possible blend ratio (43/57) and certify to ASTM D1655

– Transport to Airport and transfer to dedicated tanker.

Challenges

– Transport to Montreal - Truck and Rail

– Availability of blending facilities

– Multiple certifications in order to get highest blend ratio

– Transfer to airport location and ability to segregate from regular fossil fuel.

– Operational knowledge and resources

CAAFCER• Air Canada A320/321 on 43% HEFA

blend, YUL->YYZ, plus• Jet A1 A320/A321/B763 YYZ->YUL

• Both measured back-back by NRC CT-133 research jet

• HEFA supplied by Alt-Air, LAX• Blended by Air Canada and SkyNRG at

Montreal• Uni.Alberta, aerosol, nvPM analysis• Boeing, technical advice & oversight• DND QETE analysis of tank fuel samples

CAAFCER plume & contrail analysis

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 FSSP concentrations, no./cm3, wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

(1) NRC – Holistic (full cross-section, full-length) & autonomous (not reliant on an intermediate species such as CO2)- Horizontal & vertical transects

- reconstruct cross-plane distribution of parameter state (primary usage, contrails)

- for each species (ice, PM, nvPM)

(2) Uni.Alberta – time domain, comparative PM to NOx concentration as an intermediate species (Boeing Fuel-flow Method)

Endview of flightpath

Isometric view of CT-133 flightpath

Contour plot of contrail cross-sectional ice

particle count/cc

CAAFCER & CAAFCEB – fuel properties

CAAFCER/CAAFCEB contrailsContrails

CAAFCER Air Canada A320 aircraft

CAAFCEB, LT PNNL ATJ SPK (92%)

Transformation to cirrostratus

Transformation to cirrocumulus

CAAFCER Total PM Comparison

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 201014

1015

1016

1017

1018 CAAFCER Biofuel CAAFCER Jet A1 R. H. Moore et al., Biofuel R. H. Moore et al., Jet A1 B. E. Anderson et al., 1999 B. E. Anderson et al., 1998 G. Febvre et al., 2009 U. Schumann et al., 1996 F. P. Schröder et al., 1998 F. P. Schröder et al., 2000 U. Schumann et al., 2002 Power curve fit

Parti

cle

Num

ber E

mis

sion

Inde

x (k

g-1fu

el)

Cut-off Diameter (nm)

Unknown or 10 PPM100 PPM

1000 PPM

Fuel Sulfur Content

y = (4*1017)x-2.17

CAAFCER Non-Volatile Particle Comparison

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 201014

1015

1016

1017

1018 CAAFCER Biofuel CAAFCER Jet A1 R. H. Moore et al., Biofuel R. H. Moore et al., Jet A1 B. E. Anderson et al., 1999 B. E. Anderson et al., 1998 F. P. Schröder et al., 1998 F. P. Schröder et al., 2000 U. Schumann et al., 2002 Power curve fit

Parti

cle

Num

ber E

mis

sion

Inde

x (k

g-1fu

el)

Cut-off Diameter (nm)

Unknown or 10 PPM100 PPM

1000 PPM

Fuel Sulfur Content

y = (3*1014)x0.44

References (CAAFCER PM Comparisons)R. H. Moore et al., “Biofuel blending reduces particle emissions from aircraft engines at cruise

conditions,” Nature, vol. 543, no. 7645, p. 411, Mar. 2017.B. E. Anderson et al., “An assessment of aircraft as a source of particles to the upper troposphere,”

Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 26, no. 20, pp. 3069–3072, Oct. 1999.B. E. Anderson, W. R. Cofer, D. R. Bagwell, J. W. Barrick, C. H. Hudgins, and K. E. Brunke, “Airborne

observations of aircraft aerosol emissions I: Total nonvolatile particle emission indices,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1689–1692, May 1998.

G. Febvre et al., “On optical and microphysical characteristics of contrails and cirrus,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres, vol. 114, no. D2, Jan. 2009.

U. Schumann et al., “In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres, vol. 101, no. D3, pp. 6853–6869, Mar. 1996.

F. P. Schröder et al., “Ultrafine aerosol particles in aircraft plumes: In situ observations,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 25, no. 15, pp. 2789–2792, Aug. 1998.

F. P. Schröder et al., “In situ studies on volatile jet exhaust particle emissions: Impact of fuel sulfur content and environmental conditions on nuclei mode aerosols,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres, vol. 105, no. D15, pp. 19941–19954, Aug. 2000.

U. Schumann et al., “Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres, vol. 107, no. D15, p. AAC 2-1-AAC 2-27, Aug. 2002.

Contrail ice, variation with atmospheric conditions:• Guiding functions (NOTE: each

point is multivariate)• RHICE

• erf function (2/3, DLR 90’s)• TS

• Strong effect, ‘resonance’ function• RH lapse rate, ∂RH/∂x

• linear

-65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

TS (°C)

log 10

(FS

SP

-100

AE

In),

no.

/kg

FSSP-100 AEIn ~ TS

JetA,ACCESS.0.8MHEFA,ACCESS,0.8MCAAFCER,JetA1CAAFCER,HEFAJetA1,B763,CAAFCERFA20,JetA1FA20,JP5FA20,PNNLdata-fitKarcher model[10]

60 80 100 120 140 160 18010

11

12

13

14

15

16

RHICE at survey vortex height (%)

log 10

(FS

SP

-100

AE

In),

no.

/kg

FSSP-100 AEIn ~ RHICEback

JetA,ACCESS.0.8MHEFA,ACCESS,0.8MCAAFCER,JetA1CAAFCER,HEFAJetA1,B763,CAAFCERFA20,JetA1FA20,JP5FA20,PNNLdata-fit

-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.210

11

12

13

14

15

16

(∂RH/∂z)back at survey vortex height (% m-1)

log 10

(FS

SP

-100

AE

In),

no.

/kg

FSSP-100 AEIn ~ (∂RH/∂z)back

JetA,ACCESS.0.8MHEFA,ACCESS,0.8MCAAFCER,JetA1CAAFCER,HEFAJetA1,B763,CAAFCERFA20,JetA1FA20,JP5FA20,PNNLdata-fit

Figure 8: plots of contrail ice number AEIn against the atmospheric properties TS, RHICE, ∂RH/∂z, for NRC contrail data from NASA ACCESS II (low Sulphur Jet A and 50% HEFA, one aircraft the NASA DC-8), [ ], CAAFCER (Jet A1 and 43% HEFA-SPK, a number of aircraft) [ ], and CAAFCEB (Jet A1, A-3 JP-5 and 92% LT PNNL / 8% 150 ND, one aircraft, the NRCFA20). Shown as blue lines are assumed enveloping functional relations; in the TS plot, the modelled ice particle generation data from Karcher [10] is included.

Contrail ice no. AEIn parameterisation with atmospheric conditions

Figure 9: accounting for local variations in atmospheric state, for CAAFCER A320/321/B763 aircraft (AEIn adjusted to reference HC & SC, using the correlations identified earlier), CAAFCEB NRC FA20 aircraft (no HC or SC adjustments made); NRC data from NASA ACCESSII DC-8 is included for reference only, but was not included in atmospheric identification.

CAAFCER / CAAFCEB contrails conclusions

• Contrails measured for a range of fuels, JetA1, A-3 JP-5, 43% HEFA/JetA1 92% LT PNNL/150ND

• In CAAFCER, measurements done in context of revenue flights• Ice particle number associated with hydrogen content• Ice particle small dependency upon sulphur content• Introduced AEIOPTICAL extinction EI for optical effects

• Future: • Undertake holistic optical measurements, ECCC extinction probe• Radiation studies therefrom

• Quantify RF effect upon GW – reduction thereof

Thank YouTechnical Questions:[email protected]

Flight Research Laboratory, Aerospace Research Centre, NRC Canada

Tel: 613 990 4487

1920 Research Road, Bldg U-61, Uplands, Ottawa Airport, Ontario K1V 2B1Government of Canada



Contrail, PM, nvPM, optical X-sections (bottom right two figs.)

y (m)

z, g

eo-h

eigh

t (m

)FA20 CN concentrations, no./cm3, wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

y (m)

z, g

eo-h

eigh

t (m

)

FA20 CPC concentrations, no./cm3, wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14x 10

4

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 FSSP concentrations, no./cm3, wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 RHw , wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

65

70

75

80

85

90

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 RHi, wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 FSSP Median Vol. Diameter, wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6x 10

-6

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 FSSP EXTINCTION COEFF, (km-1), wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 500

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

ExC

eoff

verti

cal i

nteg

rand

, m-1

x m

lateral distance (m)

LT PNNL ATJ SPK: (top row) CN, CPCnv, FSSP no./cm3, ice particle MED (µm); (bottom row) RHw, RHice, extinction coefficient (km-1), optical depth distribution across the contrail.

CAAFCER & CAAFCEB contrailsContrail ice mass (left) /no. (right) variation with Total hydrogen content

CAAFCER/CAAFCEBcontrails & fuel sulphurcontent

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

fuel Sulphur content (% mass)

FSS

P-1

00 A

EIn

, #/k

g

HIGH M CRZ FSSP-100 AEIn ~ fuel sulphur content

JetA,ACCESS.0.8MHEFA,ACCESS,0.8MCAAFCER,JetA1CAAFCER,HEFAPAR I/D, ACCESS & CAAFCERJetA1,B763,CAAFCERFA20,JetA1FA20,JP4FA20,LT-PNNLPAR ID,FA20

Contrail ice no. AEInvariation with Sulphur content

• Slight variation, ∝S2/3, c.f. S2 for PM (NASA, Aerodyne sulphurflight experiment)

Contrail optical effects, ∫∫ ECdzdy per kg fuel-- Variation with Total hydrogen content

y (m)

z (m

)

FA20 FSSP EXTINCTION COEFF, (km-1), wake length 1-5 nm)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 500

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

ExC

eoff

verti

cal i

nteg

rand

, m-1

x m

lateral distance (m)

Contrail optical effects – atmospheric parameters

-1 0 1 2 3 4 50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

measured log\_1\_0(\Int\IntExtCoeffdzdy/(TAS/fuel-flow), m/kg)

iden

tifie

d [A∂R

H/ ∂

za TSb R

Hic

ec

], no

rmal

ised

by

104

FSSP-100 AEECzy, integrated extinction coeff EI

FA20,JetA1lin.reg.FA20,LT-PNNLlin.reg.

Figure 11 (right): plots of product-power-law identifications of contrail zenith optical apparent emission index AEIECzy for CAAFCEB Jet A1 (blue) and 92%LT PNNL SPK / 8%150 ND (green). Horizontal dashed lines are the corrected values for the two fuels, for TS= -46°C, 100% RHICEand ∂RH/∂z=0.02 %/m – a 50% reduction for LT PNNL.

CAAFCEB project

• The CAAFCEB project was a 2017 project, using the NRC Falcon to burn high-blend ATJ SPK, JP-5, JetA1

• Funded by ECCC (Transport office, Gatineau),TC and NRC Canada.

Air Canada CAAFCER operations• For departing jet: HEFA-blend bowser, airside for refueling at YUL

• Operational go-ahead, evening before (contrailing conditions sought)• AC flight at the gate overnight, in the early AM hours

• Drained of fuel/Refueled with HEFA blend fuel load• Fuel sample taken from wing, for aromatics, H2, napth., etc. tests

• Dispatched into commercial service on-time• Standard flight profile

• NRC T-33 intercepts at TOPC• 1-2,000 feet difference in height• might request +1-2,000 feet height change for contrailing conditions to prevail• at 5nm back, clearance to the AC height

• Contrail & emissions survey

CAAFCEB PM emissions (holistic method)Particulate matter (PM & nvPM, in high altitude M0.8 cruise (constancy of altitude, engine operating condition, fuel between flights):

• JetA1• 7.5% ultrafines (CPC, >2.5 nano-

m) were non-volatile (nv), with 3x PM between 2.5-10 nano-m – such as sulphates.

• A-3 JP-5• nvPM higher than JetA1 (largely,

soot)• 12% of CPC were nv (higher %

than JetA1 likely due to lower sulphur)

• 92% LT PNNL / 8% 150 ND• large reduction in PM (time-trace)

• 80% reduction in nv (soot)• 91% reduction in ultrafines• Less volatiles (nvPM was

19%)

CAAFCEBProject CAAFCEB scope, aircraft:• Aircraft

• NRC Falcon 20 jet (GE CF700 engines)• NRC CT-133 measuring emissions &

contrails• Position & winds, 600 Hz• PM – CN 7610, CPC 3776, denuder• NOx analyser (42I @ 1 Hz, NO)• LII300 BC mass• Licor 840A, H20, CO2,• Ice particles, FSSP-100

CAAFCER PM time-domain Boeing Fuel-flow Method EI derivation

CFM56-5A1Biofuel

CFM56-5A1Jet A1

CFM56-5B4/PJet A1

FSC: 520 ppmAromatic: 14.5%

N1: 82.4%


N1: 80.2%


N1: 80.9%

1014

1015

1016

1017

1018

Par

ticle

Num

ber E

mis

sion

Inde

x (k

g-1fu

el)

>2.5 nm (Non-volatile) >2.5 nm >10 nm

No

Dat

aRequires inflight engine data records availability – May 4a (CFM56-5B4/P Jet A1) and May4b (CFM56-5A1 Biofuel and Jet A1)

fuel composition & administration federal aviation …2018/12/04 · sajf 3. present acrp 02-80...

Documents